Dog bite ruling may have unexpected consequences
Being bitten or scratched by patients is an occupational hazard for veterinarians. In the United States, a veterinarian who is injured by a patient can not sue the animal’s owner.
Laws state that veterinarians have special knowledge of animal behavior and should be able independently to assess whether a pet is a threat. We have the right to refuse to treat an animal that we decide is hazardous. However, if we are injured by an animal that we have elected to treat, we cannot hold the owner liable.
A court ruling last fall set a precedent that will expand the group of people who are not able to seek damages from animal owners.
A kennel worker was mauled by a dog. She sued the owner of the dog. The court ruled that kennel workers, like veterinarians, have special knowledge of animal behavior. They therefore cannot hold owners of animals liable for injuries sustained while working. The ruling likely applies to all staff members at boarding, grooming, and veterinary facilities.
At first glance, this sounds like good news for people who have nervous pets that lash out at vets or groomers. However, the ruling may have a dark side for these animals.
First, the ruling allows injured animal workers to sue owners who do not disclose their pet’s previous aggressive or nervous behavior. In other words, if a pet has ever bitten or scratched a person and its owner does not disclose that fact, the owner can be sued.
As well, there is no doubt that America is a sue-happy place. Some day, a kennel worker will be bitten by a dog. He will start looking for someone to sue. He won’t be able to sue the dog’s owner, but he will be able to go after his boss. And he will probably win. After all, employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe workplace.
What could happen next is frightening. A combination of workplace safety laws, insurance company policies, and litigation precedents could make it impossible for veterinarians to treat any pet that anyone in the facility feels may be dangerous. In the worst-case scenario, nervous or nippy animals may not be able to receive any form of veterinary care whatsoever.
I hope that this scenario does not play out. But in the crazy world of the US legal system, I fear that anything is possible.
Due to the controversy that surrounds the terminology, I try to avoid using the words owner and guardian. However, this post deals with legal matters and litigation. Courts unambiguously and consistently use the word owner. I have followed that precedent in this post.
You have questions. 
The argument about liability “slippery-slopes” of litigation are profoundly overstated, especially in the world of animal law. It is one thing to hold that an owner may not be sued for a “first bite” attack, with the reasonable caveat of owner responsibility regarding previously established “dangerous” animals. It is another to characterize this as the first step in a cascade of common law holdings and passage of positive laws making animal care cost-prohibitive. Not having read the court decision referenced in the article, it appears that the holding is a judicious balance of liability and risk.
As it is now with regards to costs for veterinary practices as it pertains to liability, veterinarians are barely liable for malpractice or negligence, with only the cost of the animal and a nominal assessment for “intrinsic value” (and that is only in some states). Animals are considered property under US law, in all 50 states, and only two states (TN and IL) allow for loss of companionship to be considered in the damages awarded (small awards). So, losing your family member due to negligence on the part of a veterinarian is considered the same as losing your class ring, with the courts declaring that there is “no room for sentimentailty” in assessing the value of a pet. Thus, veterinary malpractice insurance is virtually unnecessary (as is continuing education, since there is little penalty for outdated knowledge). In fact, since there is no private cause of action for veterinary malpractice with the state licensing boards, there is a low risk for even professional censure!
The courts are not anxious to change this property status without legislative action in the form of positive law. In general, the courts tend to lag behind social change by about 15 years (with the exception of racial segregation). Veterinarians will have ample opportunity to have their voices heard before changes occur, and those “attacks” of kennel workers should be mitigated through training and workers compensation.